John Linton .....for all the knowledge and understanding the High Court will bring to understanding copyright theft.....at least it would produce a quick decision with no enormous costs.
I read through this earlier this morning:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2011/323.html
not because I have any interest in any possible ruling next year but because I wanted to get some idea as to whether the AFACT advocates would be able to rescue the dog's breakfast of the case they tried to run originally (it appears they couldn't from what I read). It would be extremely difficult, even for a far more able advocate than AFACT have selected, to try and explain the complex intricacies of how people steal property via BitTorrent to completely computer illiterate senior citizens and clearly it is beyond the selected advocate's abilities based on this transcript. Once again the sheer inanity of the line of 'argument' pursued beggars the imagination.
It is surprising, to me, that the law makers in this country haven't worked out decades ago that the system of asking non-competent persons in their retirement years to rule on topics, subjects and incidents of which they can have no conceivable knowledge is truly ridiculous way of shaping a country's laws and observances. There has to be a better way of controlling Australia's lawless elements whether they be a larcenous teenager stealing movies or a corporate mega crook stealing billions - or even a dumbest of governments infringing human rights. Three thousand years of emulating the 'village elder' tradition of summary rulings must be seen to be obviously inadequate by now? ......and that is all the Australian High Court is....a bunch of politically appointed 'mates' approaching senility getting one last opportunity of getting their snout in the trough before the men/women in white coats finally wheel them away.
So, some time in 2012 a bunch of senile senior citizens will rule on a dog's breakfast set of contentions. Then what happens? At best nothing at all - because, despite the separation of powers or whatever cliche justifies the enormous expense of the High Court no one involved in making whatever ruling is made will understand anything more about the issue than when the whole fiasco began. The French parliament legislated on this issue and, irrespective of how you view either the French, their assembly or their views on democracy that is the only way any 'progress' will be made. I drive on the right hand side of the road because I am told to - no-one is interested in my views on my rights to drive anywhere else - it's the 'law' and anyone with contrary views is going to get in a whole heap of trouble. I can't walk in to a bank and help myself to the teller's cash draw because I think the bank charges too much interest (it's against the law) nor can I drive a new car away from a dealership because I think Porsche charges too much for a 911 (its against the law).
The 'copyright infringement' nonsense can only be resolved by Federal legislation and, as interventionist as the current High Court members may be viewed - they can't enact legislation - so whatever 'ruling' they make cannot progress anything. So, apart from the morons, the current nonsense occurring in Canberra has no meaning for anyone at all other than the lawyers who will be paid enormous sums of money to reveal how incredibly unknowledgeable they are on a simple subject which they will never be able to grasp let alone elucidate for the retirement home residents they will be talking to.
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
ABN 350 979 865 46